Ted Grant

An
instructive light on the bureaucratic attitude and methods of the Stalinist
bureaucracy in Russia has been provided by the case of the five Russian workers
at the Hangers artificial limb factory at Roehampton.

Under
instruction from the Soviet Trade Delegation, these workers have refused to
join the appropriate British Trade Union. This episode has become an
international scandal by the obstinate and high-handed refusal of the Stalinist
bureaucrats to adhere to democratic working class principles and procedure.

These
workers started as trainees at the Hangers factory at the beginning of May in
order to learn British methods for use in the Soviet Union.

In the
usual way, after they had settled down, the question of membership of the
appropriate Trade Union was raised with them. A letter published in the
September issue of the N.U.F.T.O. Record,
journal of the National Union of Furniture Trade Operatives (and significantly
enough written by V. Zak, a prominent member of the “Communist” Party in London
who would naturally enough try and present as favourable a picture as possible
for the Stalinist bureaucrats) gives the facts of the dispute which followed.

The Russian, workers through their translator
expressed agreement to joining the British Union and said
they “would fill in nomination forms for membership and hand them in on the
following day.”

On the next day, however, they stated that they had
instructions from the Soviet Trade Delegation not to join a British Trade
Union.

The ostensible, obviously feeble excuse
given was that the rules of the Soviet Trade Unions forbid dual union
membership, and that they would forfeit their rights if they joined a British
union! As if such a situation could arise in democratically controlled unions
with the facts before them! As if a single word from the present Russian
authorities, who completely control the Russian “Unions” would not have been
sufficient to settle the matter!

Then
followed a great deal of bureaucratic mishandling of the situation by the
Russian Trade Delegation. According to the Union Journal, despite the attempts
of the London District, in whose hands the matter had been placed, to contact
Kuchurov, a responsible member of the Trade Delegation he ignored their
approaches and visited the Managing Director of Hangers before contacting the
London District Committee of the Union.

After the
interview, which did not reach a satisfactory conclusion, Kuchurov was asked to
raise the question with a higher authority and give the answer within eight
days.

“As no reply had been received by June 13th,
Mr. Kuchurov was ‘phoned but again was not available, nor was he available on
the 16th, but on the statement that unless we had a reply that
afternoon we would have to raise the matter with the Soviet Ambassador, a Mr.
Andrienko promised a favourable reply for the 18th. It could be
added, however, that within an hour Messrs. Kuchurov and Andrienko were at the
head Office of our union at Golders Green interviewing the two Assistant
General Secretaries.”

“On the 18th June a letter was sent to the
Soviet Ambassador enclosing copies of the letters already referred to and
pointing out that ‘as a result in the main of long struggle, the Trade Union
workers have established in… the artificial limb factories a position where the
management has been forced to agree that only workers belonging to appropriate
Trade Unions shall be employed or work in the factory. This arrangement covers
skilled workers, unskilled workers and trainees. In the circumstances,
therefore, for the workers to agree in any such particular factory that a
worker being trained or otherwise employed shall be considered as excluded from
such agreement would, in fact, be the thin end of the wedge to enable once
again the introduction of non-unionism. This is more especially true in the
artificial limb factories at Roehampton, in view of the fact that workers from
countries all over the world, as well as from this country, are trained there
in this kind of work. It should of course be added that the breaking down of
the principle of 100 percent trade unionism in the appropriate Trade Unions
would bring with it the undermining of wages and working conditions.

“It is further necessary for me to point out in view
of the arguments advanced, that:

“1. Nobody is querying the fact that the workers in
question are members of their appropriate Trade Union in the Soviet Union.

“2. The Soviet Trades Unions cannot be considered as
being appropriate Trades Unions for workers in this factory.

“3. While the Soviet Trade Union rules exclude
membership of two Unions within the Soviet Union, this cannot be considered as
applying in factories outside of the frontiers of the Soviet Union.”

This
moderately worded and reasonable presentation of an unanswerable case from the
point of view of workers’ democracy and trade union struggle did not receive
even the courtesy of acknowledgment let alone a reply. The Union, even though
the Stalinists have a powerful fraction within it, faced by this contemptuous
attitude sent a telegram appealing to Kuznetzow, Chairman, All Union Council of
Trade Unions of the U.S.S.R., requesting his…“immediate intervention as
position extremely difficult friction arising between Soviet trainees and
British workers…”

On 30th
June, the General Secretary of the Union, together with Zak himself, met
representatives of the Ministry of Labour who had requested the meeting. The
Russian Ambassador had raised the question with Bevin! Apparently the Stalinist
Government considered it so vital as
to get the Russian Ambassador to raise it with the British Government. He had
disdained to consult the direct representatives of the workers concerned, but
hoped to achieve his object by diplomatic pressure.

Meanwhile,
the Russian press and the wireless had come forward with the usual distortions
and lies of the Stalinists against working-class opponents. The stand of the Union leaders under the
pressure of the workers at Hangers, as well as of the workers in the London
District of the Union on the question of elementary trade union organisation
was described as an appeal “to the basest instincts of the most backward
section of the workers of this Trade Union…”

The Russian
bureaucrats pictured the situation as one of “discrimination” against Soviet workers, despite the fact that it
had been explained that the principle
applied to all workers from other countries abroad, as well as at home.

In fact,
the workers at Hangers had regularly organised collections for the Stalingrad
hospital during the war. As the letter of Zak correctly comments:

“Yes there was discriminatory action regarding the
Soviet workers. They were requested to become members of an appropriate Union
in accordance with the custom and practice established over a number of years
in regard to foreign and other trainees; but contrary to the normal procedure
of giving them seven days to join, ten weeks went by in negotiations before the
workers took any action, and then did not do what they would have done in any
other case: demand the removal of the offenders from the factory.”

“On the 8th July at the regular shop
meeting the workers heard a full report of the attempts to settle the matter
and decided:

“(a) that the agreement on 100 percent Trade Union
membership must be upheld;

“(b) that the Soviet workers not holding membership of
appropriate Trade Unions would not be allowed to use tools, but could remain in
the factory as observers.”

The most
crushing comment of Zak is:

“In capitalist countries the question of the establishment
and maintenance of 100 percent Trade Union membership in appropriate unions is
a fundamental cornerstone to class action. And
let it be added that the ‘duty of proletarian solidarity’ is not a one-sided
one.”

Stalinists
fear truth

But any
worker would scratch his head over such a hullabaloo and din for what, after
all, to such a mighty state as Russia should seem a trivial matter. Why such a
fuss? Why antagonise a powerful British Trade Union, and the workers in the
furniture trade on what is an elementary trade union necessity, over five people? Why the antagonism and fear
at joining a Trade Union in Britain?

In this
incident can be seen the symptoms of the Stalinist disease. The Stalinist
bureaucrats are afraid of the contact in the democratic organisations of the
trade unions of even a handful of specially selected workers for fear that they
should contrast the comparative freedom of British unions with the totalitarian
set-up in Russia. It is the same reason which leads the bureaucrats to refuse
exit visas to the Russian brides of British and other peoples. No one must
leave Russia, over whom the G.P.U. has not got entire control. They may talk
too much and reveal the truth about the Stalinist dictatorship. No Russian
worker must have even the remotest connection with British or other unions for
fear it might loosen their tongues.

Even the
smallest particle of truth is dangerous to the Soviet bureaucracy.